Posted
by
timothy
on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @12:02PM
from the fungible-phonecalls-upset-rigid-rules dept.

New submitter himilean writes with this snippet from PC World: "A Florida VoIP carrier has filed a net neutrality complaint against a Georgia utility and broadband provider, after the utility accused the VoIP firm of theft of service for using its network to deliver voice service without paying for it. L2Networks filed the net neutrality complaint with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission Tuesday, the first formal complaint since the FCC passed net neutrality rules in December 2010. L2Networks' filing comes after the telecommunications manager for the City of Albany Water, Gas & Light Commission, a municipal utility in Georgia, filed a theft-of-service complaint with the Dougherty County Police Department in Albany earlier this year." Asks himilean: "So, would this not be considered the most abusive power of all within the legal system? Does this mean if I Skype my buddy and he's on Comcast, Comcast can file theft charges against me?"

1. start isp2. let users access the internet3. charge users for accessing the internet (sustainable)4. users get what service they pay for (NOT theft of services)5. profits

It never ceases to amaze that people are allowed to get degrees without ever having to take economic sustainability 101.

Village epic fail once again LOL

why would you need to charge the users if you define others on the internet providing service to the users as theft of service and sue those service providers for profit? that's how idiotic this municipal isp is.

There are four levels of service, slashdot loves car analogies so it works like this. There are the highways, which take services intercity, interstate and international. Then there are the main roads which distribute services throughout the city. Then there are suburban streets which distribute services from main roads to every other street. Then there is the kerb to the house, the final service. The ISP really should only do the kerb to the house. By breaking it down you can more readily generate competi

L2Networks purchases ethernet transport from Albany Water in order to serve its voice and Internet customers, Beahn said. The theft-of-service complaint stems from a single customer that uses L2Networks VoIP service over Albany Water's broadband service, he said. L2Networks also provides IP transit services to Albany Water, he said.

There's no simpler way to put it than the article quote above. What is obvious is there is a massive civil contract dispute going on, and its not entirely certain who is right and wrong. What is certain is this is merely an escalation. One side pays money to rent space and were locked out during an outage (who caused that outage?).

The real tragedy, beyond the net neutrality issue that is a minor part of this hyper dysfunctional relationship, is the rule of law is gone in the USA. If you have a civil contract between two citizens/corporations, nothing happens with law enforcement until after a judge makes a decision. But if one party in a civil contract is in any tangential way involved with a local government, then before a judge is involved, you can expect police harassment, criminal charges to be filed, etc.

This is what scares me away from municipal fiber / municipal wireless. In a civilized world it would work, but in the USA, if you are a municipal internet customer and open a trouble ticket, you could realistically expect the police to break down your door, stomp your puppy to death, and beat you, because thats just how law enforcement rolls in the land of the free.

I prefer getting access from my local cable monopoly... whats the absolute worst thing they can do to me as retaliation, disconnect my modem and tv? Intentionally screw up the paperwork and send my account to collections for service and hardware for at most a couple hundred bucks?

Hmm A couple hundred bucks and maybe an "accidental" disconnect, vs stomping family pets to death and beating people. I think I'll avoid municipal internet, thanks.

Sounds like the last time Grand High Sherriff's men stopped by my place looking for my scofflaw siding contractor....jackboot-smeared puppy all over the carpet. That little fella had a lot of guts though.

I would tend to want to avoid municiple internet though I think there role should be fiber to the home. Where they just take care of the fiber and manage the cross patching to whoever wants to provide services. Could they be a provider for services above that sure just not the only ones.

>>> if one party in a civil contract is in any tangential way involved with a local government, then before a judge is involved, you can expect police harassment, criminal charges to be filed, etc.

It's always been this way. Look-up the history of Eli Whitney when he was trying to defend his patent over the cotton engine. The local government usually defended the farmers or inventors who had hand-built copies of Eli's work, and interfered with the ongoing civil lawsuit.

The best scenario would be fiber owned by the state government (just like roads) and each customer gets to decide what brand internet they want to purchase: Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Verizon or MSN (just like they choose what brand car to drive).

Of course you make a good point about how corporations, shitty as they are, are actually BETTER than government. The government can suck money dir

The government can suck money directly from your paycheck, or bust down the door of your house, or drag you off to jail. A corporation can not.

And why can't a corporation do anything of those things? Government, that's why.

No, because if some private corporation sends jack-booted thugs to my door, they'd better bring plenty of body bags. I have the right and the ability to defend myself from assault by another private entity. My neighbors would also join the turkey-shoot as well, I'm quite certain.

Government, however, can send in SWAT teams, the Nat. Guard, or even the full-on military. Legally. On behalf of the corporations. That's why a relative

No, because if some private corporation sends jack-booted thugs to my door, they'd better bring plenty of body bags. I have the right and the ability to defend myself from assault by another private entity. My neighbors would also join the turkey-shoot as well, I'm quite certain.

And? This somehow does not apply if those "jack-booted thugs" call themselves "the police"? Oh, because the consequences are different?

It's different because the private jack-booted thugs don't have armies and artillery and an air force and the force of a national government behind it.

Well that isn't always the case. History shows that the consequences of your example can rise to the same level of the consequences of doing the same to "the government's" jack-booted thugs.

I'm sorry, but this isn't medieval times nor a feudal system where Lords and Guilds did what they wished under the authority of a King and/or the church. Even then, they needed the permission of, or at least a blind eye turne

Um, no. I never said anything about government overseeing itself, I talked about us, the people, overseeing government. So both times I said the below, you thought I was talking about government overseeing itself?

The way your post was worded, yes, it seemed as if you thought that all we needed was just some more "oversight committees" and other government cruft whose only job is to make it appear like there's some sort of control or limits.

As far as we, the people, being the oversight, that's been our job all along from the beginning.

"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm not, at this time, discussing the exacts of what powers a government should hold, simply that.. there are two lines in the sand. Crossing over one represents attaining enough power to begin infringing on the rights of others, while crossing over the other represents attaining enough power to be an effective government. And I believe that you cross the first described line long before crossing the second described line. If you disagree with that, then we should be discussing that. If you had been addressing that, then I missed it and apologize.

Any power the government holds can be abused and infringe on individual rights and liberties. That line starts at anything above zero. Basically that's what government is, the people ceding some of their freedom and rights conditionally to the government in exchange for, and in the interest of, forming a nation and governing it.

My views could probably be largely described as "practical libertarian". I'm aware that some government is necessary, but the things that can be dealt with in the

And why can't a corporation do anything of those things? Government, that's why.

I hate to break this to you, but Rollerball is not a documentary. I'm sorry to have to shatter your entire worldview.

How would it be profitable for Ford, in a true free market, to go around and force people in North Dakota to buy Ford vehicles? Mercenaries are very expensive and the local areas would have their own private police/security forces that would oppose them along with local citizenry. Where has this ever happened in history?

Sorry, what is "Rollerball"? I was looking at history. You know, like the East India Company, or the industrial revolution robber barons, just to name a few examples.

No, you have been reading propaganda, not history.

The East India Company was backed and subsidized by the British government in the form of special tax and regulatory privileges. Check your history book about something involving Boston and Tea in the late 1700's. Those weren't East Indian Company troops enforcing the Tea Tax.

The "Robber Barons" were nothing of the sort. They were the ones who made your lifestyle today possible. Lets look at Standard Oil for example.

Your forgetting when Apple appeared at the house of someone who 'found' an unreleased iphone, with actual police officers and their own security.. searched the house.. no record of a call, or report being filed.. Took a long time, and a lot of attention about it from some media for those officers to get into trouble..

Bullshit. Ever heard of a search warrant? Yes, with one of those, uniformed officers can search your premises, but that doesn't make it OK for private security contractors (mercenaries) to come along, and without a warrant, police aren't allowed in your residence at all.

Oh ya like the police neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr broke the law and searched without a warrant. All they have to say is i smell weed or any other bullshit excuse. And also laws are made constantly trying to make it legal to search without a warrant. Hell what about all the DUI check points that's searching without a warrant.

Ok, you have a point, but my point is that at least there's some semblance of legality there; there's supposed to be a warrant, and many times charges are indeed thrown out because cops didn't follow procedure correctly or evidence is tainted. With the military, there's no such thing. If they want to bust into an innocent person's house, there's nothing stopping them, and they do it all the time.

Plus, just because the USA is going down the tubes as far as law enforcement becoming a paramilitary organizati

This is what scares me away from municipal fiber / municipal wireless. In a civilized world it would work, but in the USA, if you are a municipal internet customer and open a trouble ticket, you could realistically expect the police to break down your door, stomp your puppy to death, and beat you, because thats just how law enforcement rolls in the land of the free.

Well, that depends on what city you live in and who is running things there. A decade back I called the Mayor (who actually talked to me!) complaining about the taste of the city water; I had to buy a filter and take water to work with me, city water was undrinkable. I was never harrassed orr threatened, and the water tasted very good just two days later.

She retired and we got a new Mayor, and after my (now ex) wife was in an accident with a city truck that had run a red light, I got pulled over every damned day.

But corporate monopolies can fuck you over, too. The city owns the power company, and we have (but not for long I fear, we got a new Mayor after Davlin committed suicide) the lowest rates and the best uptime in the state, and customer service is about as friendly as it could possibly be. Two F2 (nearly F3) tornados hit here on March 12, 2006 and completely destroyed the electrical infrastructure in a large swath of he town. The entire town was without power for several hours, and a week later everyone's electricity was back on. It took a month for anyone to get landline phone or cable service back. The city's scars from the tornado were still there two years later; it was a humungous mess.

That June a weak F1 hit the St Louis area. A month later I visited a friend in Cahokia (in the path of the tornado, right across the river from St Louis) and he still had no power, but that was the only evidence that there had even been a tornado.

So all in all, after my experiences, I'd pick municipal internet over corporate internet any day. They just raised our electric rates, and I expect the Mayor (the real head of the power company) to not be re-elected because of that.

If the service is municipal owned and the rates are high and the service is shitty, the mayor loses his job. In a corporation, you have no pull whatever. What are you going to do, buy your electricity from another provider?

Now, if this was Chicago instead of Springfield, I wouldn't want to contract for city-run ANYTHING.

If the service is municipal owned and the rates are high and the service is shitty, the mayor loses his job. In a corporation, you have no pull whatever. What are you going to do, buy your electricity from another provider?

In PA, you can do just that. I have switched my electricity provider twice since the price caps were removed (thus making electricity choice relevant) and ended up with a cheaper rate each time. I will have to go back and check old bills because my "green" efforts have reduced my usag

PA has had dereg since 1996, no caps since 2010 and so far, no brownouts or Enrons. CA had its brownouts while the caps were still in place, because bogus shutdowns caused limited supply and in turn increases in prices. The infrastructure bottleneck between north and south enabled this; it should have been fixed as part of the agreement. PA and CA both embarked on dereg at about the same time; PA's worked.

I was looking at the toxic business relationship angle, you're looking at it from a completely different angle.

Look at the history... even the article notes that they used to get along years back. Then foolishness gets started which has steadily escalated for years. Net neutrality is being used as a weapon in todays battle in the multi-year war between that company and the local water utility. If I interpret you correctly you are analyzing how well they're applying that individual weapon. I think your i

Here we have an instance of a tiny fish wanting to gobble up a huge national-international issue. If there is a case to be made it needs to at least resolve the issue for the entire nation. The hazard rests in the government simply not liking people to be able to communicate. Governments universally seem to dislike the ability of people to communicate easily.

Either you provide Power, or water, or broadband or phone or TV.The fact that everything runs on your pipes/cables/em waves does not mean you are the one and only provider.At least for the sake of market freedom.And finally, what's written in the EU contract?

I don't think the European Union contract has anything to do with this. AND: The theory was that government should provide all these "necessities" to the citizen: power, water, sewer, and internet. They believed the government would do a better job than for-profit company. (Ooops... they were wrong.)

No, the theory is that government should provide things, not necessarily just the necessities, to citizens where for-profit companies wouldn't

But what about instances where private for-profit companies provide poor quality unreliable service? Should a municipality, if petitioned by the citizens, respond "We're sorry, but a private company is already providing that service."?

We live in a rural community. People consider themselves lucky to get DSL. There is no cable option. Some people get long range WiFi. We consider ourselves to be extremely lucky because we can get 3mb DSL service. The service is, for the most part, fairly reliable, but we have

Around here, the government WANTS faster internet, but the Cable company keeps complaining when competition moves in or the state tries to lay its own. The people want it, the people are willing to pay a fair price for it, the Cable companies are not willing to do it.

Actually, this was more like the past decade. The people finally won and we're getting fiber state wide. State is laying the infrastructure and leasing and/or selling at whole sale, while also providing grants/loans for local ISPs to upgrade/expand their infrastructure.